Andrew MacKinlay: No, I am not, as I want right hon. Friend to do something—I want him to ensure that Parliament sits in September, although it would not be required to legislate at that time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Parliament should not sit only when there is legislation to consider? I want the House to sit in September for ministerial statements and parliamentary questions, and there is no reason why that could not happen. Although no votes would be held, Ministers would be required to attend and those hon. Members who so wished could probe them and find out what was going on. Those who allegedly observe us would also have to be here, whereas at present the Press Gallery is like the Marie Celeste.

Geoff Hoon: I urge the hon. Gentleman to make his presence felt in his trade union and use his considerable influence as a Member of Parliament with trade union members. I am sure that they would be intrigued to hear the views of a Conservative Member of Parliament—from which, I suspect, they do not benefit regularly —but I advise him to be perhaps a little careful when he talks to them about the importance of employment. They have long memories of employment in this country under Conservative Governments. They can reflect, however, on the fact that 2.3 million jobs have been created in our economy since 1997, and on the fact that the Conservative party's scare tactics to about the success of a Labour Government simply have not worked.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I shall touch on some of the flood issues. We are lucky enough to have two Ministers present, and if the issue of flooding is raised, I am sure it can be swept up towards the end of the debate. To be fair to the Minister for Housing and Planning, there is so much to talk about in connection with the Thames Gateway that it is difficult to know what to put in and what to leave out.
	As the Minister acknowledged, under both the Thatcher and the Major Governments a great deal of attention was paid to the eastern part of London. Lord Heseltine made a major contribution to public policy and vision in that regard. We know that London is a world-class city with great opportunities for development, but it is also a city of contrasts between extremely rich and extremely poor areas. The Thames Gateway offers an opportunity to develop a greatly under-used area and to provide good-quality development. There is great potential—4,000 acres of brownfield sites, which is about 17 per cent. of the total in the region.
	It is important that the development is sustainable, with local communities, jobs and facilities, so that people can live their life there without having to crisscross London. The scheme will require massive co-operation between the public and private sectors, together with joined-up government to ensure that the full range of public services is provided. Unlike other parts of the sustainable communities plan, a great deal of public investment will be needed up front—the Minister mentioned a figure of £6 billion. It is sometimes difficult to identify what the Government are spending under each heading and where the money is going. When he sums up, will the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), provide a list so that we can see how the £6 billion will be spent over the next few years? That would be more helpful for the public debate than merely speaking about "billions".
	As the Minister said, there are to be 120,000 new homes and 180,000 jobs in this large area, which measures 40 miles by 20 miles. It will be a major growth area for the next 20 to 30 years. Of the £6 billion, the Government have already announced £1 billion for transport infrastructure. There are some important schemes in the area. I had heard that the channel tunnel rail link was due to be finished in 2007, but the hon. Lady mentioned 2009. It is interesting how the dates tend to change at the end of infrastructure projects.
	Other schemes include the Greenwich waterfront and east London transit scheme, the docklands light railway extension to City airport, and the proposals for the Thames Gateway bridge, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) mentioned and which will be the subject of an inquiry. There is an argument for improving links north and south of the Thames as transport links south of the Thames have not been the best, but I accept that there are concerns that if traffic is directed towards the south, that could put added strain on already overcrowded roads. I do not expect the Minister to comment, as a public inquiry is due.
	I shall not dwell on Crossrail, which has been the subject of many debates over the years. It is an expensive project and an important one for the development of London. I was struck by the contribution 12 months ago from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) who, in his usual way, mentioned the benefits to his constituency of the Jubilee line and pleaded that when Crossrail comes to fruition at some time in the future, there should be a Woolwich station. I saw the right hon. Gentleman in the lift this morning and undertook to mention it, as he has an important constituency engagement. I understand that Woolwich is the only town centre without a station, so local people are no doubt strongly in favour of a stop there when that major and very expensive infrastructure scheme is implemented.
	The Mayor and the London Assembly think that the projected housing figures are on the low side and that there might be the potential for up to 300,000 houses in the gateway, so there may be rather more and rather higher density levels. That could be achieved only if the transport infrastructure is put in at the beginning of the process. We need sustainable communities in the Thames Gateway so that education, culture and open spaces are available to the local community.
	The subject of skills has been raised by my hon. Friends and by the Minister. Because the eastern part of London still has unemployment blackspots, it is important that when the development takes place and a massive investment is made, we do our best to ensure that local people have the skills to participate in building up their own communities. If we do not, we may well find people from other European countries coming in under the single market to take those jobs. I welcome the Minister's comments about the schemes, but I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) about the importance of vocational training. The electrical, plumbing and building trades will be key to the development. One of the concerns is that with the preparations for the Olympics in 2012, there will be a skills shortage. The Government will have to face that challenge.
	This month, the London Assembly environment committee chaired by Darren Johnson published an excellent report entitled "London under threat? Flooding risk in the Thames Gateway". The report raises a number of concerns, which the Under-Secretary might address later. I hope he does not think this is scare-mongering. Last time I raised the issue a year ago, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) presented the Government case in his usual robust fashion, but as tragedies across the world show, there are important questions to be answered.
	Fragmented responsibility is one of the major concerns about flood defences. The report suggested that there was a lack of clarity about what was putting London at risk. There is a web of different agencies in the gateway, some with overlapping responsibilities. Landowners are responsible for maintaining the majority of the defences, yet in some cases it is impossible to identify the owners. The committee was told that in 5 per cent. of east London, flood defences were in poor condition, so there is much work to be done. It concluded that information on Kent and Essex is less good than that on London and the Thames Gateway—the information is patchy, and some of the flood defences are worse than that. In the debate 12 months ago, one of my hon. Friends mentioned the major floods of 1953, and we must do all that we can to avoid major flooding before we build thousands of houses in that area.

Robert Syms: That sounds like an excellent subject for an Adjournment debate.—[Laughter.] The issue will undoubtedly come up again, but I do not know a great deal about it, so I shall stay away from it.
	We know that 1.25 million people in London are at some risk of flooding. If there were flooding in the Thames Gateway, the cost of the damage could amount to between £12 billion and £16 billion. The Government have set up the Thames estuary 2100 project, which is being run by the Environment Agency, to examine the matter. Some are worried whether the deadlines for that project will slip, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reassure us in his winding-up speech that everything is on schedule and that the work is being done. Once the project has identified what must be done, the funding situation must be clarified in order to get it done.
	The Minister mentioned the 2012 Olympics, which will draw a great deal of investment into that area of London.
	On water resources, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which has produced an excellent little booklet on the Thames Gateway, has raised the issue of fresh water. If hundreds of thousands of homes are built in that part of London, then the issue of water resources must be addressed.
	On housing quality, the CPRE is keen on high urban design quality and has suggested the introduction of quality thresholds. Some of the architectural design in parts of east London leaves a little to be desired, although that area of London also contains some fine civic buildings. New buildings in the area over the next 20 to 30 years must be of the highest quality—the quality of development should be good in addition to the quantity.
	I welcome the Minister's comments about affordable housing. I agree that it is important for people to buy their own homes, but many people do not have that opportunity, so we must continue to provide a decent amount of affordable housing.
	London is a world-class city. The east of London contains a lot of under-used resources, and provided that we make sensible provision for flood prevention and that Departments and local authorities work together to provide the services and facilities to support that development, we can provide decent homes for hundreds and thousands of people, which will provide growth and generate a great deal of wealth.
	There is a lot to commend the development of the Thames Gateway, but certain questions remain, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will not only sweep up my concerns, but answer my hon. Friends' questions. I have participated in debates like this in which few hon. Members were present, so I am glad to see so many hon. Members participating today. I shall not prolong my speech, because I understand that another hon. Member wants to make a maiden speech.

Natascha Engel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on the Thames Gateway. Before anyone else tells me, I know that the Thames does not run through North-East Derbyshire.
	I want to pick up on the theme of the Thames Gateway as a regeneration project. What is happening in North-East Derbyshire defines regeneration. Harry Barnes, the MP for the past 18 years, spent much of his time putting in the foundations for that regeneration and overseeing many historic changes. Harry had to deal with the devastating consequences of mass pit closures and the resulting unemployment, but he made sure that North-East Derbyshire got its share of compensation and clean-up money. Right to the end, only weeks before his retirement, Harry got millions of pounds from this Labour Government to clean up the environmental mess left by the Avenue coking works in Wingerworth.
	Regeneration is about change—change for the better—but it is also about building on what we have. North-East Derbyshire used to be dominated by mining and steel, and we still have a working pit in Eckington, but both industries are in decline nationally and locally. Although many of the mines are closed today, it is brilliant to see that the community spirit that bound people together in the villages is alive and kicking. That spirit has survived and adapted to our new industrial landscape, and it is the spirit of socialism. Without socialism, regenerating our communities and helping those who live in them to develop and grow would not be possible—it is the simple idea that if someone helps their neighbour, their neighbour will help them.
	Speaking of neighbours, I thank all the Labour Members in Derbyshire, who have made me so welcome. I was introduced to the Derbyshire Labour MPs when I was on maternity leave, and they brought me on a campaign to prevent the closure of medical assessment centres in Chesterfield and Derby. Yesterday, it was announced that both centres will stay open. That was achieved only by the collective strength of the Derbyshire Labour MPs working together with a national Labour Government. This is, to me, the spirit of trade unionism.
	True socialism and trade unionism, the very roots of the Labour movement and the essence of regeneration, are about recognising that an individual finds dignity in work, self-esteem in skills and a sense of civic pride in community engagement. From the ashes of coal dust and the coking plants, we have grown higher-tech, higher-skilled and more highly paid jobs.
	The Markham employment zone at junction 29A, which is more commonly known in our part of the world as Skinner's junction, gives us a unique opportunity to look a decade ahead.—[Interruption.] It is called Skinner's junction. We can identify the skills that are needed, train local people to do a job of work and let them apply their new skills. The pits, the coking plants and the steel works have also blighted much of our countryside. That project means that we are developing an expertise in cleaning up the environmental mess that we created. Skinner's junction is employing hundreds in the construction industry today, and it will provide anything up to 5,000 jobs in the future. In the same way as London and the south-east of England have embraced the Thames Gateway, we must grab that opportunity with both hands.
	As MPs, our challenge is to make sure that good ideas and projects are supported by good public policy. The biggest problem with national legislation is that there is no one size that fits all—all people are different and no two circumstances are the same, which is why our Labour Government's policy on localism is so exciting. Localism is about breaking the culture of centralism and devolving power and resources to communities. In North-East Derbyshire, there is a fantastic example of how that works in practice.
	The Staveley neighbourhood management project was set up about three years ago by the Deputy Prime Minister to address the problems of declining industries. Community-level services are co-ordinated and tailored to suit the needs of the community. The project covers everything from health, education and housing to transport, crime and community safety—just about every aspect of national government—but they are Staveley's policies matched to the needs of the people of Staveley.
	Another village, Grassmoor, recently built a brand new community centre. It is heavily used, but not by the younger people who live there. The centre therefore organised a day of activities to attract young people in and to find out what they wanted. Apart from learning some fencing, archery and ox-boxing—I still do not know what that is—I spoke to a lot of the 12 and 13-year-olds about what they would normally be doing on a Sunday afternoon. They all said that they would be watching telly, hanging around or doing "whatever"; none of them would have been charging around, full of energy and enthusiasm and learning new things. This is what national taxpayers' money should be supporting. Who knows, one of these kids could take up fencing and end up representing us all at the 2012 Olympics.
	As politicians, we must have the ability to look ahead not just for years but for generations. Whether it is building a Sure Start centre in North Wingfield, a brand new primary school in Clay Cross, or a secondary school in Dronfield, we have to look at what we will leave behind. We must make the best use of what we are already lucky enough to have, however big or small. At the moment, I feel like the luckiest person alive. I am doing a job that I love and the possibilities seem endless.
	We have an industrial culture and manufacturing skills that are second to none. I want us to continue that tradition in North-East Derbyshire by building a university for manufacturing to harness and pass on those skills to future generations. I want to see true regeneration whereby we equip the young people of today with enough confidence and know-how to make decisions about the future. If younger people are to take the lead in rejuvenating our communities, it is down to us to give them the skills to do it, and we must respect their decisions if we want to be respected in turn.
	Harry Barnes is a sincere and respectful man, and as a result he earned a mountain of respect in his 18 years as MP for North-East Derbyshire. I have only been an MP for a few months, but I have already made my own personal contribution to regenerating North-East Derbyshire—I had a baby a couple of weeks after the general election. It seems that a lot of other MPs on both sides of the House have done the same. It is good to have plenty of new parents here. We need a more representative mixture of parliamentarians. It gives us a stronger focus on life outside this Chamber and keeps us closer to the real-life experiences of many of our constituents. It might keep us up at night, but most importantly it will keep our feet on the ground.
	I am really pleased to be making my maiden speech during a debate led by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for regeneration. She is living proof that it is possible to combine good parenthood with the work of an MP. On top of that, she has always taken time to give me good practical advice. In fact, it was she who told me that none of us can get too self-important when we are walking around with baby sick on our shoulders.
	I hope that all the kind voters of North East Derbyshire who put me here and everyone in Westminster—all my hon. Friends and all the staff who work here—will make sure that I never get too self-important and help me to do the job that I was put here to do—to represent everyone in North-East Derbyshire to the very best of my ability.

Howard Stoate: It is expected that by 2010 there will be an influx of 1 million people into the south-east, attracted by the prosperity of the region. The projected construction of 120,000 new houses in the Thames Gateway by 2016, outlined in the sustainable communities plan, is part of an attempt to meet that challenge. The plan also recognises, however, that if the development is to be sustainable, the extra houses must be balanced by the creation of new jobs in the Gateway, primarily to cater for the new residents but also to combat social exclusion and low employment in existing communities. There are currently 1.5 million people living in the Thames Gateway, but only 500,000 jobs.
	In his evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee during its inquiry into sustainable housing, Sir John Egan, the Prime Minister's adviser on the Thames Gateway, said that the purpose of development in the Thames Gateway is to provide high-quality housing for the most highly skilled people, who are attracted to London as one of the most successful cities in the world. He said that the purpose of development in the Gateway and the rest of the south-east should be to allow anyone to live in any part of the region and commute to any part of London.
	That statement wholly contradicts the Government's stated policy and objectives in the sustainable communities plan. The Government need to clarify their intentions with regard to housing growth in the Thames Gateway. Is their primary aim to service the needs of London or to assist the regeneration of the Gateway and combat existing social exclusion? Or is it both? How do the Government intend to reconcile those two conflicting objectives? I should welcome clarification in the winding-up speech.
	Dartford is no stranger to development and change. The gradual withdrawal of heavy industry has left many regeneration areas that are gradually being transformed into new communities. That is making the area a more pleasant place in which to live and work. Only yesterday, I visited a company in my constituency called J. Clubb Ltd. to celebrate the 75th anniversary of its existence in Dartford. The company was founded by Jimmy Clubb senior in 1930 and it employs 70 people. It provides aggregates, concrete and services to the construction industry and has been involved in almost every regeneration project in Dartford since 1930. Its new volumetric mixing vehicle has just become the first of its kind in Europe to be given British Standards Institution accreditation.
	However, Dartford is also no stranger to controversy. At the heart of an ambitious plan to regenerate the town centre is a proposed Tesco development. I am told that if the development goes ahead, the store will be the second largest Tesco in the country. The development would also include more than 500 new dwellings and would result in the compulsory purchase of some 50 freeholds. More controversially, it would mean a road through the central park in Dartford.
	I am very disappointed at the lack of consultation by both Tesco and the developer and the failure to engage with local people and local stakeholders. This is a project of enormous strategic importance to the Thames Gateway area. There are huge local concerns, especially about the road. I presented the council with a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures from people opposing the road. I also held my own referendum in Dartford. Of those who responded, 93 per cent. were against the road and only 6 per cent. in favour. Adjudication was independent. I am disappointed that a company of that size has not sought to engage with local people. The only way that we can enable existing communities to live in harmony with big new regeneration projects is to ensure that the existing communities are helped to understand the proposals at every step of the way and are given a chance to have their say. I am very pleased that my colleagues in the Department have agreed to call in the project for an inquiry, because that shows that they have understood local concerns. A planning inquiry will start shortly and it will be interesting to see how it goes.
	There is no doubt that regeneration, economic investment and new housing are needed in the Thames Gateway area. I believe, however, that the only way to ensure that housing growth in the area is truly sustainable is to provide a direct link between housing and employment growth. When the first new towns were being planned and built in the south-east after the second world war, to cater for the overspill from London and other cities in the region, every effort was made to match jobs with housing. Indeed, in some cases it was impossible to secure a house in a new town without an offer of employment with a company or service in the area.
	The system had inherent flaws and I certainly do not advocate a return to it, but we need to find a way of ensuring that economic growth keeps pace with housing growth. In my constituency, for example, there is a real danger that employment growth will soon begin to lag behind housing growth. The development of more than 1,000 homes in north Dartford is beginning to get under way, while the planned development of between 6,000 and 7,000 homes in Eastern Quarry recently received outline planning permission from the borough council. However, progress in the creation of jobs around the new international station at Ebbsfleet has been much slower.
	The potential to create more than 20,000 jobs exists, but as yet few substantive expressions of interest have been forthcoming from either the public or the private sector. A commitment by the Government to a major public sector relocation to Ebbsfleet would undoubtedly help to stimulate greater interest from other potential employers.
	I believe that until concrete proposals for job creation at Ebbsfleet are on the table, housing developers in the area and on major strategic sites surrounding it should proceed with caution. A substantial proportion of Dartford's labour force—currently 38 per cent.—commute to London, and I am anxious to ensure that that percentage does not increase further. Not only would such an increase place further unnecessary pressure on our already overstretched public transport infrastructure, but the viability of the new communities would be undermined if they became, in effect, no more than dormitory villages.
	I support the principle of redevelopment in the Thames Gateway area and in Thameside in particular, but development on such a scale must be tempered with economic growth. The proposed developments represent a 20 per cent. increase in Dartford's housing stock. If that happens too quickly, it will unbalance the job market and result in negative rather than positive outcomes.
	I would like the Government to consider either setting up an agency or charging an existing agency with responsibility for examining the viability of new housing development in the Thames Gateway from an economic and employment perspective. An agency with that responsibility, perhaps an executive arm of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Department of Trade and Industry, would complement the work of executive agencies such as the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency, which are charged with examining the impact of new development of the trunk road network and the environment respectively. If such an agency took the view that a development was unsustainable from an employment perspective, it should have power to issue a holding notice delaying development until its concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
	What about infrastructural improvement in existing communities? Since the publication of RPG9a in 1994, when Dartford was first identified as a major development area in the Thames Gateway, successive administrations at Dartford borough council have sought to underline their commitment to ensuring that Dartford's existing communities, particularly those with high levels of deprivation such as Swanscombe, gain from the new investment being channelled into the borough.
	In January 2003, shortly before the launch of the Government's communities plan—which reaffirmed Dartford's status as a key growth area—the Kent Thameside local strategic partnership made Swanscombe, Temple Hill, Tree Estate and Alamein Gardens priority communities in view of the "particular difficulties and challenges" that the communities faced. It resolved that it would
	"endeavour to focus resources on the areas".
	A survey of residents' views on the impact of regeneration on the area revealed widespread apprehension about the impact on Swanscombe in particular. Many residents expressed concern about the affordability of the new housing and the impact of new development on existing house values, while others referred to the disparity between the quality of existing homes and that of new homes in the new communities. That led the survey's authors to conclude that
	"the general lack of satisfaction with the area",
	combined with
	"a sense of lack of control and influence over both the new developments and mainstream services"
	could
	"foster division between the new and old communities."
	As a result of those concerns, a Swanscombe and Greenhithe master plan has been drawn up, funded by English Partnerships and commissioned by the South-East England Development Agency. Its aim is to provide a blueprint for future development and investment in the area. It considers how the physical fabric and the character of the community can be enhanced and tries to identify ways in which Swanscombe can be physically integrated into the new communities surrounding the village. The plan has not been costed, but its authors make clear that
	"although the masterplan provides a comprehensive vision, it has to be recognised that delivery will defend on funding availability. A key objective must be to maximise major public and private sector funding to secure regeneration initiatives."
	As the master plan's own survey of possible funding opportunities shows, however, there are very few agencies with either the resources or the commitment to ensure that the plan's objectives are even partly met. The ODPM has raised £1 million for
	"community facilities and environmental improvements"
	in Swanscombe, which has already been allocated to existing projects. Apart from the ODPM, few of the Kent Thameside regeneration partners have the wherewithal to support the delivery of the master plan. SEEDA and English Partnerships have considerable resources at their disposal, but have made it clear that their priorities lie with the delivery of new development in Kent Thameside. The only projects in the area that they are likely to fund are those that can be shown to deliver clear benefits to new as well as existing developments.
	Similarly, although the Housing Corporation could help social landlords to provide affordable housing in Swanscombe, and support schemes aimed at the purchase and refurbishment of empty properties, it is likely that the vast majority of its resources will be used to fund affordable housing on the new development sites. Extra capital funding from Dartford borough council is also unlikely to be forthcoming. The council has been heavily committed in the area over the past year, and has tied up much of its capital in other projects to regenerate other parts of the borough.
	Swanscombe will continue to benefit from EU Urban II funding until 2008, but Urban II bids require match funding from other agencies and must adhere to its strict funding criteria. Funding bids to improve public buildings and green space and to promote job creation are permissible, but bids to improve private housing are not. The other drawback with the Urban II project is that the total funding amounts to only £7.4 million over six years and is meant to be available to Greenhithe, Northfleet and Gravesend, as well as Swanscombe.
	The only other funding option available to the area are the section 106 agreements signed between the borough council and Land Securities, the company which is developing the Eastern Quarry, Ebbsfleet and the Swanscombe peninsula. The borough council has already concluded that this represents its best chance of securing
	"both investment in Swanscombe's private sector stock and ensuring affordability of new and existing properties for sale".
	The master plan also includes a large section that considers how section 106 resources from surrounding developments can best be used to meet the area's needs.
	It is becoming increasingly apparent, however, that section 106 agreements alone will not provide extra resources for the area on the scale that the borough council and others believe is necessary. Unless extra resources can be made available, there is a real danger that our existing communities will not benefit fully from the regeneration opportunities in the area.
	I want briefly to examine the environmental impact of development. Given that the Government have set a target of reducing carbon dioxide levels by 20 per cent. of their 1990 levels by 2010, it is disappointing that they have chosen merely to encourage developers in the Thames Gateway to adhere to their sustainable buildings code, rather than getting them to set actual carbon reduction targets. Instead, it has been left to local authorities and regional development agencies to set their own environmental development standards. SEEDA, for example, insists that all its funded projects comply with the EcoHomes "excellent" standard. English Partnerships has set an EcoHomes standard of "very good", although it has required some projects to meet the higher standard. The standard set by local authorities, on the other hand, varies from "excellent" to no EcoHomes standard requirement at all. Dartford borough council recently set an EcoHomes target of "good" in its 2004 housing strategy. There is considerable lack of clarity on this issue and the Government need to deal with the question of targets by giving developers a clear lead on what they expect to see in local areas.
	The piecemeal approach to sustainable design and construction in the Thames Gateway has meant that developers have not given sustainable design the priority that it deserves. There are some exceptional examples of high quality sustainable design, such as the Greenwich millennium village, where the use of combined heat and power plants and a high standard of home insulation has resulted in a 65 per cent. reduction in primary energy consumption. So things can be done, but we need great commitment by the Government to ensure that such developments are replicated across the region.
	The other critical issue for Dartford is water supply. At present, there is a surplus of water, but the situation could easily change. As the Environment Agency stated in "State of the Environment 2004 in South East England",
	"the south-east consumes more water per person than any other region, but receives one of the lowest amounts of rainfall. A huge increase in water demand is expected as a consequence of new housing development in the south-east."
	Thames Water, which supplies Dartford, forecasts that by 2029 baseline demand in the region will have reached 2,800 million litres a day—an increase of more than 400 million litres on today's figures. If something is not done to ensure that the new developments are sustainable in terms of water usage, there could be considerable problems in the medium to long term. The targets that Thames Water would like to set might be difficult to reach, but unless the Government give it and developers a steer on the anticipated level of water supply and consumption the situation will be difficult to resolve.
	What we really need to do is to ensure that a thorough reassessment takes place from an environmental perspective of Kent Thameside's housing growth plans. The Thames Gateway Kent Partnership has suggested that a cumulative impact assessment of the effect of new housing development on, for example, flood risk in the area be carried out. This is a welcome proposal—it should have been made some years ago—but there is a good case for expanding the remit and looking at the proposed development in Kent Thameside from a broader environmental perspective, assessing its impact on water resources, climate, biodiversity, air quality and so on. Only then will we really be able to ensure that the very exciting and welcome development in Thames Gateway is genuinely sustainable in the future.

Andrew MacKinlay: I begin my adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mrs. Engel), who made a cogent, comprehensive, confident and passionate maiden speech, which I enjoyed enormously. She is not in her place just now, but I look forward to hearing her speak again, and to her underlining her commitment to our common faith—socialism.
	Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), who is also Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I represent the area covered by the Thurrock Thames Gateway development corporation. The borough of Thurrock has the longest river frontage of all the riparian local authorities along the Thames. It has the last large working part of the port of London, and is already a major growth area. Rightly, the Government set up a development corporation exclusively for Thurrock. I welcome that good initiative, subject to one or two points of clarification and qualification that I shall raise a little later.
	I represent the only part of the Thames Gateway with a development corporation that is in the Government's eastern region. I think that the Government may have to reconsider that. With the best will in the world, I cannot accept that Thurrock has any logical relationship with the—albeit important—cities of Cambridgeshire and Norwich. It is inextricably part and parcel of the wider London conurbation: London's motorway goes through the borough and, as I said earlier, we share a river with the capital. My constituents commute to London. They are often Londoners who moved east, who benefited from the innovative planning of Labour pioneers in the previous century. I am thinking of the Labour dockers who ran the Tilbury urban district council, and the Labour-run London county council of the 1920s and 1930s, which built so many of the local houses.
	I do not want to embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, who also represents the area. I get on extremely well with her, and do not want to speak for her or inflict guilt on her by association. However, I am sure that she would sign up to the broad thrust of my remarks. I welcome the establishment of the local development corporation, but a number of concerns have been raised by various well regarded organisations.
	For example, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has drawn attention to some anxieties about flooding. As legislators, we have to strike a balance: we do not want to scare people, but we are obliged to secure a reassurance from the Government that flooding will not be a problem months or years down the road. If that were to happen, people might ask what their public representatives had been doing. The burden is on the Government to assure us that the flood defences are sound, and that the effect of any new or additional residential or commercial development in my area—or elsewhere along the river—has been taken fully into account.
	Other hon. Members have alluded to the Gateway's environmental impact. A number of organisations—including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—constantly remind us of our responsibilities under the directives governing birds and habitats. They point to the critically important role played by the Thames flood plain and marshes in respect of bird migration, among other things. Such matters are very important, to this and future generations.
	I am very sensitive about environmental matters. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) raised legitimate questions about how the waste produced in his constituency would be got rid of. The same question bothers me deeply, as my area suffered exploitation throughout the 20th century at the hands of two very unwelcome industries—mineral and gravel extraction, and landfill. From the Terrace of the House, hon. Members can see barges heading for Thurrock, carrying London's waste to my constituency.
	I hope that the Minister can reassure me about the destination of human and household waste resulting from growth to the east of London. Where will it go? If I have anything to do with it, it certainly is not coming to my patch. It is terrible that the landfill industry should continue to grow, and the problem of waste resulting from increased development is a pressing one.
	The Minister who will reply to the debate is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, I asked a question about Thurrock and the Thames Gateway, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government. Today's debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, and I am genuinely confused: which Minister has responsibility for the Thurrock development corporation area? There is no clarity at the moment. In my area, there is some disappointment that the corporation should have been so slow to begin its work. Therefore I need to know which Minister I must turn to so as to ensure that action is taken in the future.
	Although there has been significant and welcome growth in the Thurrock area in the past decade, it has been unplanned. As many hon. Members accept, residential development there is very necessary, but it is also important that there be commensurate growth in the local infrastructure. I am talking about roads and other forms of transport and communication, as well as the essential public services that must be delivered. We desperately need co-ordinated planning to ensure that there are enough hospitals, GPs and police to match the growth in residential and commercial development.
	We must also make sure that schools with the appropriate capacity are built in the right places. One reason for my enthusiasm for the urban development corporation is that I believe that it can provide the planning that is so urgently needed. The lack of co-ordination in Thurrock to date means that schools are often in the wrong place. That causes parents a great deal of legitimate disappointment and frustration when they cannot get their children into schools near their homes.
	It is claimed that we have joined-up Government in this country. Therefore I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Health that any reorganisation of the police command units or of the primary care trusts should maintain coterminosity with Thurrock borough council and the development corporation. If there is any dilution of that, if the police command unit that currently covers Thurrock is extended to include Brentwood and Basildon, and if the PCT area is extended too, it will greatly diminish the capacity of those, particularly in the development corporation, to be energised and enthusiastic in focusing on creating a new and exciting environment in this part of the Thames Gateway.
	I have indicated that I have some reservations and am disappointed about what has happened. The development corporation was set up by Parliament some time ago but has been enormously slow in getting under way. I do not want to rake over old coals; nor am I qualified probably to make a judgment. Sometimes people blame the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and sometimes people blame Thurrock Thames Gateway development corporation. However, it has been enormously slow. Therefore I welcome the fact that, in the past few weeks, by statutory instrument, the development corporation has finally had its planning powers vested in it, and I understand that it now feels that it has the funding necessary for it to embark on its mission.
	I ask the Minister to look at that matter. It has tested my patience considerably to find that, after Parliament set up the development corporation well over a year ago, there was, until recently, little to show for it. It is relevant because the development corporation was given a relatively short lifespan: seven years. I could not understand that at the time, because the West Northamptonshire urban development corporation, which was set up at about the same time, was given 10 years. Basically, there is little more than five years left.
	It would greatly assist people like me, but more important, the Thurrock Thames Gateway development corporation, if the Government were to announce that its life expectancy was considerably longer. It is important that it be given more time, given that it will have to deal with land development and compulsory purchase orders, to attract the right staff to develop its mission of building the exciting area along the Thames Gateway, to collaborate with key partners and developers and to try to secure commercial development agreements and joint ventures. I hope that the Minister will draw that to the attention of his ministerial colleagues with some dispatch.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point, which is fair, and I am sure that those responsible will examine the matter, because we must have clarity, particularly for those members of the public with whom we are trying to engage. If we find the situation difficult to understand, it will be much more difficult for our constituents, who do not have our experience in addressing such questions.
	My hon. Friend spoke of the scant attention that the Thames Gateway receives from the media, especially the BBC, and, along with the majority of hon. Members in the Chamber, I share his disappointment. Half of what was known as Fleet street is now located in Canary Wharf. At one point, I thought that there must be a wall down the middle of Canary Wharf that prevents editorial staff from looking eastwards and forces them to look back towards the City and Westminster. The development in the royal docks and beyond has not received the attention that it deserves, and I hope to hear my hon. Friend on "Today in Parliament" repeating his point about the BBC.
	My hon. Friend mentioned Thurrock urban development council and expressed his concern that progress has been too slow. Although I acknowledge that setting up new organisations can take longer than we might want, the urban development council is fully operational in its new offices, and I have been advised that it is open for business. I apologise because I cannot tell my hon. Friend its telephone number, which I am sure he will obtain in due course.
	My hon. Friend has asked why the Government are not considering another Thames crossing to the east of the Dartford crossing, but I am sure that he knows that two studies have already taken place. One of them was conducted by the Strategic Rail Authority, which examined demand for a rail passenger and freight crossing, and the other was conducted by the Highways Agency, which examined capacity management at the Dartford crossing. Those reports are with Ministers at the Department for Transport for further consideration, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is monitoring that very closely.
	In an eloquent speech, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) expressed fears about the Olympics being a potential distraction from the overall project of regenerating the Thames Gateway. I anticipate that the reverse will be the case, as the Olympics will accelerate the process. Regeneration was always going to happen in Stratford and the east, and I am confident that what may have taken 15 years will be accomplished in seven. As we build further to the east, it will be a natural, organic step to move on to the rest of the Thames Gateway.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that urban development corporations are not accountable. As non-departmental public bodies, they are governed by legislation that is passed by this House and are run by a board with local authority representation and officers at a political level. They are meant to, and should, work in partnership with local authorities and local strategic partnerships to ensure that policy and decision making is an open process that achieves what local communities want.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the housing mix and the possible lack of three and four-bedroom properties. I acknowledge his concerns, but the matter is being dealt with. It is not clear how widespread the situation is. We will issue new guidance on housing, including the housing mix, through planning policy statement 3. However, local authorities need to have a clear idea of the housing mix that they need as a benchmark for assessing the applications that they receive and approve.
	The hon. Gentleman asked us to ensure that east London transits are prioritised. As he may be aware, the east London transit, which is bus-based, is prioritised in the Mayor of London's five-year business plan. Construction is due to start in 2006, with phase 1—Ilford to Dagenham—to be completed in 2007. Further phases are planned and will be part of Transport for London's business planning process. The intention is to join the transit with the Thames Gateway bridge to create, with the Greenwich waterfront transit, a Thames Gateway transit.
	The hon. Gentleman's language, which included the phrase, "sub-regional economic development", may not have been to the taste of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. His encouragement for the Government to make brave decisions smacked of "Yes, Minister", but perhaps that is my personal reading.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), who is chair of the all-party group on the Thames Gateway, began his remarks by agreeing with the speech by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. I was not too worried about that, as there is a lot of consensus on this development. I remember getting into difficulty with members of my local party when in my maiden speech I commended, in a qualified way, the previous Conservative Government's vision of regenerating the docks, inspired by Michael Heseltine.
	My hon. Friend clearly outlined the risks from the far right if we get the development in east London wrong, and the pressures that currently exist. I know that he campaigns very strongly on these issues. His description of the problems that need to be acknowledged and addressed was thoughtful yet forceful. He accepted that much imagination is needed, and that much is being used, to deal with those problems.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and I may be on opposite sides of the Chamber but, as he said, we share a joint interest in the future of West Ham United football club, which is one of the Thames Gateway's great football clubs—I would say the only football club, but other Members may disagree.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about casino development. At the beginning of the month, the casino advisory panel began examining locations for the new types of casino for which the Gambling Act 2005 provides. The panel is not due to report until December 2006 and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to go further.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke about sport and culture in Southend and Southend council's support for local stakeholders to develop their vision for Southend as a cultural and educational hub. Sport is obviously an important part of that. We look forward to continuing the relationship with Southend and to its presentation of well supported projects in future.
	The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to his local fire and rescue service. Having visited Essex fire brigade recently as Minister for fire safety, I am happy to add my endorsement for their sterling work in trying to protect the pier, which they were clearly able to do to some extent. However, I regret that I cannot accede to his begging-bowl request for £50 million—that is a pretty big bowl—and I am sure that he did not expect me to do so. However, there is much sympathy and support for Southend.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) made some positive comments about developments in his constituency part of the Thames Gateway. He sought assurances that serious consideration would be given to several other projects. He can be assured that the Government will do that. He praised Sure Start as one of the Government's successful flagship initiatives. There is almost universal agreement about that.
	My hon. Friend's final wish involved the application for funding the A249 relief road. It is currently with the community infrastructure fund. All the applications are being considered and I am therefore not in a position to respond to that request today. However, I am sure that he will hear something in the near future.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and other hon. Members asked why Crossrail was not programmed to stop at Woolwich. I am advised that the tunnel for Crossrail is very deep at that point. That makes the development of the station at Woolwich expensive—a possible cost of more than £100 million. However, land has been safeguarded at Woolwich and it would allow expansion of Crossrail when the overall business case is strong enough or when the argument is won. Discussions are continuing with the London borough of Greenwich about the evolution of any future proposals. Given that my hon. Friend and his neighbours are already lobbying strongly, something may happen sooner than expected. Clearly, it will be a difficult argument to win.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the dome and it would be an omission not to reinforce his points about the impressive and ambitious plans to regenerate the whole Greenwich peninsula, including Anschutz's designs for the new entertainment complex called "The O 2 ". He outlined the training partnerships between the local college and Charlton Athletic as an example of key initiatives to show how local people can benefit from regeneration schemes that could and should be copied elsewhere.
	My hon. Friend asked how transport would deal with accessibility in support of the Paralympics. It is clear that Transport for London is already investing heavily in major station refurbishments. Part of the investment includes ensuring that transport is fully accessible to all through the transport hub of Stratford and throughout London. As arrangements for the Olympics evolve, so will accessibility.
	My hon. Friend made a powerful case for affordable social housing to rent. I hope that he knows that that is a key priority for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We committed £3 billion to it last year alone. I appreciate that some people do not regard that as enough, but as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said earlier, we are determined to reverse decades of decline in house building. We believe that we have made a good start.
	We have accepted Kate Barker's central recommendation that there should be a step change in housing supply. Our proposals are designed to tackle acute problems in the shorter term in a way that underpins our longer-term objective of creating a stable housing market where supply and demand are balanced. We have to confront the reality of the housing market in London and the south-east, where people have long waits for social housing and our young people are denied the chance to set a foot on the property ladder because of costs.
	We have the agreement of the regional planning authorities to provide 120,000 new homes in the Gateway by 2016. We are working to set the numbers into plans. Growth brings benefits and opportunities. The Government have invested £6 billion in the three years up to 2006 to deliver the robust infrastructure and public services necessary to support housing expansion. In addition, the spending reviews of 2002 and 2004 delivered a ring-fenced £850 million Thames Gateway budget, administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to support local projects that unlock growth.
	That investment will bring positive change to existing residents of the Thames Gateway and those who will make a home there in the years ahead. This is not just about new residents; it is as much about the people who live in the Gateway now. Community cohesion is vital both for the existing community and for those who will move into the area—the key argument used by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham. Neither is this a programme for isolated dormitory towns; it is a plan for thriving and sustainable communities. We want people to feel proud of the communities in which they live, and our £26 investment in green space to improve the look and feel of a sub-region that had experienced decline and deprivation will help to do just that.
	The Thames Gateway is not a new idea. Indeed, London owes its very existence to the Thames, acting as a gateway to England. As in the past, London is still a gateway to the wider south-east and to the United Kingdom. As a celebrated and historic capital and a world financial centre, it is the rallying point for our nation. The Thames Gateway must see its vocation within and adjacent to the economic heart of London as an asset: an economic heart whose centre of gravity is moving eastwards, to the benefit of the Essex and Kent dimensions of the Gateway.
	London's potential was wonderfully exemplified when it was chosen as host city for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The impact of that honour through increased investor confidence and momentum will be felt not only across the capital but in the Essex and Kent Thames gateway. We all know that the Thames Gateway lies in an area of great opportunity. Let us maximise that potential, and deliver results right across the Gateway sub-region.
	The Government are committed to the growth and regeneration of the Thames Gateway, backed up by investment and a swathe of delivery projects on the ground. We are determined to take the opportunity that the Thames Gateway presents, and make a difference to the quality of life of thousands of people in both this generation and the next.

Pulmonary Disease (Surface Workers)

Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend is right, and his point about the pneumoconiosis scheme is extremely important. That no-fault liability scheme, introduced in 1974, covered surface workers, and it accepted that they worked in dusty conditions and were likely to contract pneumoconiosis. The claimants group of solicitors have already traced some 34 cases of men who worked only on the surface but who contracted pneumoconiosis.
	However, the minute makes it clear that the dust that caused COPD in miners underground was the same as the material to which miners working in certain areas on the colliery surface were subjected to.

CORRECTION

18 October 2005: In Col. 794, insert "Taylor, David" in the Ayes.